Author
Topic: U2, Please: Get Up Off Your Knees (Read 29348 times)

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

To be fair, I'm curious how much commercial factors had to do with their decision to work on a song with Kendrick Lamar. There was no huge publicity made about it, and nobody even knew U2 was involved until Lamar himself released the track listing for the album that featured U2s name on a song. Seems like to me that if they really wanted to make it a big deal commercially, you would have had interviews or at least something out of the U2 camp, and we haven't heard much of anything.

Also, to answer your question about Kendrick Lamar's standing in the genre of hip-hop, he's probably one of if not the most critically acclaimed artists in the genre active today, and he's a fantastic lyricist, storyteller, and producer.

To be fair, I'm curious how much commercial factors had to do with their decision to work on a song with Kendrick Lamar. There was no huge publicity made about it, and nobody even knew U2 was involved until Lamar himself released the track listing for the album that featured U2s name on a song. Seems like to me that if they really wanted to make it a big deal commercially, you would have had interviews or at least something out of the U2 camp, and we haven't heard much of anything.

Right, which is why I said that my broader complaint had nothing to do with Kendrick Lamar. XXX could not exist and my concern would still be valid.

And glad to hear that KL has the cred you say he does. That makes the collab more stomach-able (at least for me).

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Finally listened to the XXX song. I'm not a fan of rap at all (apart from the odd song here and there, mostly from the 80's or 90's) but this track isn't bad. Kendrick's voice is different to the usual whiney drawl of so many rappers, who have a sort of lazy way of rapping that usually irritates the hell out of me (rapping about the cliched stuff like flash cars, bling, pimps and ho's, like Snoop Dogg, etc, urgh I hate that stuff!) Kendrick sounds more like an old school rapper from the 80's and this track certainly has a serious subject matter, lyrics with a conscience. Bono is barely on the track but his bit of singing sounds good. This isn't something I could listen to repeatedly but it's not as bad as I'd feared!

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.

Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.

... it sounds like Exile is elitist enough for the band and most of their fans too. I completely get that being a lifelong hardcore fan of U2 is a precious thing but it doesn't do anyone any good to be so possessive about it.

Let's not devolve into personal insults.

But yeah, I am an elitist of sorts. I think U2 is better than Coldplay, better than Katy Perry, and better than Fetty Wap. I think they are tarnishing their legacy by desperately pining to be popular. It's like they have PLEASE LIKE US painted across their chests, and it's kinda unseemly.

Like many of us, I have invested the majority of my life (not to mention plenty of money) into my U2 fandom. While I wouldn't say they owe me anything, I can still mourn when I see them collaborate with Wyclef Jean or Missy Elliot.

To anyone outside this forum I am a fierce U2 defender. But this should be a safe place to rant every now and then.

Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?

It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.

Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).

But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.

They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.

There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).

Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.

Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.

There's an early interview of Bono speaking about how he perceives U2 as a business too. The question is: what exactly does that mean?

For me, most of their best decisions were made trying to reach more relevance (the thing we want them to avoid now). So, as documented in "U2 by U2", the band searching for Eno after War was because the knew they'd be pigeonholed (and then fade away) if they made another album in the same vein. After that, one could argue that The Joshua Tree was the result of U2 trying to touch a broader audience with their homage to more traditional music (even if Bono was really inspired by that). And Achtung Baby is clearly a consequence of R&H, getting hippier and more european after the "cowboy" fiasco.

The differences between now and the golden days are three, in my opinion: (1) dedication, (2) inspiration and (3) what they perceive as being relevant at the moment. Back in the day, calling Eno to make an experimental album (TUF) sounded like a great idea to bring them critical acclaim and more recognition to their brand (like a better and more complete curriculum). A smart move. Nowadays, for some reason, maybe because they were so gigantic before (something that throws a big shadow), or because they got scared after POP and NLOTH, U2 don't think anymore that they have the opportunity to rink being experimental in order to get relevant and successful. So going safe is the only route that they can see... (although I think they don't understand contemporary music and trends, and that's why they fail so hard [unless Kendrick Lamar is in the command]).

Also, there's a fourth reason too, me thinks. As we all know, U2 is a live band, so they crave for an enthusiastic response from the crowd in a show. Because of that, they release music that they imagine the whole crowd will be singing along to. They are terrifyed of a quiet crowd. Then, between Cedars of Lebanon and Get On Your Boots, which one is answer? Yes, the latter.

I don't see the huge deal...yeah, it plays a little like trying too hard to be relevant, but at the end of the day they are a rock band. It's not the worst thing in the world for them to try and stay current. U2 has collaborated with lots of artists throughout the years....not sure why collaborating with current ones draw more scorn than artists 20 years ago...is it just an age thing?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

see, the people they were collaborating with were U2's peers, BB King, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, not to mention Johnny Cash. The post-Pop era has been them reaching out to the new, cool kids. It should be the other way around.

I don't see the huge deal...yeah, it plays a little like trying too hard to be relevant, but at the end of the day they are a rock band. It's not the worst thing in the world for them to try and stay current. U2 has collaborated with lots of artists throughout the years....not sure why collaborating with current ones draw more scorn than artists 20 years ago...is it just an age thing?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

see, the people they were collaborating with were U2's peers, BB King, Keith Richards, Willie Nelson, not to mention Johnny Cash. The post-Pop era has been them reaching out to the new, cool kids. It should be the other way around.

Those guys are U2's peers? Now that they all are all in the classic territory, I guess everybody is peers... but I wonder what BB King's conservative fans thought of him fooling around with the new "band of the moment" in 1988 (the King of the Blues with a post-punk band).

Now U2 is the old act meeting the new generation. We can just hope that they will reach the right ones.

and about BB King, i know <maybe Siskel and Ebert> said it was insulting they tried to write a song for BB. But in actuality BB went to them to work on a song with them. I can see the hardcore BBheads of 1988 thinking he was selling out, when we just saw it as a great song that i STILL hear on the radio.

and about BB King, i know <maybe Siskel and Ebert> said it was insulting they tried to write a song for BB. But in actuality BB went to them to work on a song with them. I can see the hardcore BBheads of 1988 thinking he was selling out, when we just saw it as a great song that i STILL hear on the radio.

Yes, just like U2 with Kendrick Lamar or even with the other kids that people don't like around here. We don't know who are the people that the band likes.